Well, then let me assuage your concerns, HOTYH. While you MAY have an argument against police interrogations, the people conducting the interview with PR are a different breed of animal. They're prosecutors, and as such, are forbidden by the CO Rules of Conduct from deliberately making false statements in order to produce a confession.
"we believe those are your fibers" could be said by anyone about any fibers. I, as a juror presented with this information, have doubts that the paint tote jacket fibers exist.
Just what I said: she had the right to keep her mouth shut. She made her statement of her own free will under no duress or coercion of any kind. That means that her statement(s) are admissable in court and could be used against her on the witness stand. And any prosecutor worth his/her salt would do exactly that. You can bet the house on that.
Are you kidding? She gave an explanation that is directly at odds with the statements of her own husband in a book that they co-wrote TWO FULL YEARS earlier. You wouldn't call that incriminating herself in a major way? I sure would.
PR didn't provide any testimony that suggested she had the will, the means, the opportunity, or the motive to murder her daughter. While you are expounding on the fantasy of PR's confession, of how PR majorly incriminated herself, I as a juror stand firm that the questioned testimony to investigators was and is irrelevant as to her guilt.
Gladly! You said that you would need a fiber expert to explain, quote:
how these fibers, on their own, are able to place the murder weapon in PR's hands or a motive in her mind.
My answer was that the state's fiber expert would very likely explain how the fibers place the murder weapon in PR's hands. I can explain it now! Here goes:
Because the fibers in question were not found on JB's clothing or body, it stands to reason that they wound up on the tape, in the knots, in the blanket in in the paint box because those items came into direct contact with PR's clothing during the course of the crime.